I recently posted a blog entitled, Africa: Where Black is not Beautiful, which took a look at the growing practice of skin lightening. Now this phenomenon is not some naturally occurring happening but is one aided and abetted by an advertising machine that is taking advantage of our negative self-image, one imposed upon us from enslavement and colonialism. Magazines, television, internet, radio and movies are bombarding the Western blonde-haired, blue-eyed, rail-thin standard of beauty throughout the world, and presently Afrika is receiving an overdose. In Kenya, their top model, Ajuma Nasenyana is challenging such notions of beauty, and the growing practice of skin lightening. These days she is on a one-woman crusade speaking out against skin-bleaching. Ajuma says, “It seems that the world is conspiring in preaching that there is something wrong with Kenyan ladies’ kinky hair and dark skin.” Large advertising and modeling agencies seem to be promoting the light-skinned over the dark-skinned model, she says, singling out a Swedish cosmetics firm that recently entered the Kenyan market. Skin-bleaching products like Carol Light are now some of the fastest moving in Kenya. “Their leaflets are all about skin-lightening, and they seem to be doing good business in Kenya. It just shocks me. It’s not okay for a Caucasian to tell us to lighten our skin.” She says Europeans have natural skin and wonders why they want “us to bleach ours.” Various bleaching creams, soaps, gels and lotions such as Movate, Jaribu, Peau Clair, Betalemon and Mekako, which have long been banned in Kenya because of dangerous or harmful ingredients such as hydroquinone, steroid and mercury, are still being used on the “black” market. In speaking about her simple beauty regiment, Ajuma says, “I have never attempted to change my skin. I am natural. People in Europe and America love my dark skin. But here in Kenya, in my home country, some consider it not attractive.” In Kenya, like other parts of Afrika, and the black world, many women use various cosmetic products to make themselves more attractive. Afrikan women straighten their hair then look down upon their natural hair often associating it with “village hair” similar to the way Afrikan American women of an earlier century associated braids and cornrows with country or rural hair. Ajuma along with Iman, Oluchi Onweagba, Alek Wek, and Liya Kebde are among the few elite models in the world of Western high fashion. She has been a familiar face on the runways of Milan, Paris, London and New York, the fashion capitals of the world; has modeled for Victoria’s Secret, Alexis Mabille and Martin Grant; has also been a model for top clients of Ford Models like Vivianne Westwood and Alexander McQueen. (She even made a cameo appearance in the first Sex and the City movie.) She was crowned Model of the Year at the Africa Fashion Week in Johannesburg, South Africa, last October. Ajuma’s new campaign is grabbing attention, and the fight against discrimination in the modeling industry in general is also gathering momentum. Stay strong sister!

Israel has admitted that it has been giving Ethiopian Jewish immigrants birth control injections. An Israeli investigative journalist also found that a majority of the women given these shots say they were administered without their knowledge or consent. Health Ministry Director General Prof. Ron Gamzu acknowledged the practice — without directly conceding coercion was involved — in a letter to Israeli health maintenance organizations, instructing gynecologists in the HMOs “not to renew prescriptions for Depo-Provera for women of Ethiopian origin if for any reason there is concern that they might not understand the ramifications of the treatment.” Depo-Provera is a hormonal form of birth control that is injected every three months. Gamzu issued the letter in response to a complaint from Sharona Eliahu-Chai of the Association of Civil Rights in Israel. Representing several women’s rights and Ethiopian immigrant groups, Eliahu-Chai demanded an immediate end to the injections and that an investigation be launched into the practice. In addition to Eliahu-Chai, Gal Gabbay, an investigative journalist who had interviewed 35 Ethiopian immigrants, found that while the women were still in transit camps in Ethiopia they were sometimes intimidated or threatened into taking the Depo-Provera shot, often being misled about why. “They told us they are inoculations,” said one of the women interviewed. “They told us people who frequently give birth suffer. We took it every three months. We said we didn’t want to.” Birth rates and demographics in Israel are often political, and Israel has historically focused on promoting Jewish birthrates to retain a Jewish majority, according to a recent New York Times report on fertility and in-vetro fertilization in the country. But Ethiopian Jews remain a marginalized group, often living in highly segregated communities. Because of this, many women’s and immigrant rights advocates believe that the 50 percent decline over the past 10 years in the birthrate of Israel’s Ethiopian community is the result of the Israeli government’s attempt to limit and restrict Ethiopian women’s fertility through forcible birth control injections. Hedva Eyal, head of the Women and Technologies Project for Israeli feminist organization Isha L’Isha, had submitted a report six years ago to the Israeli government showing a disproportionate number of birth control shots — 60 percent — were being given to Ethiopian immigrants. She says she was met with silence, until now. “The ease with which a woman’s testimony is dismissed — certainly that of a black woman and a poor black woman at that — is shocking,” Eyal told the Los Angeles Times. Also hoping Israel’s health minister will take further action, Eyal added that the bottom line was that “decisions about women’s health and fertility can and must be made by the women alone.” For that, they must have full and fair access to all relevant information “and that did not seem to have been the case,” she said.

The end of the 40-year cold war between the two superpowers, the US and the USSR, left the world open to a new world order. This new world order was one where former combatants replaced conflict with cooperation, which in turn would address such issues as troop deployments and reducing armaments, stimulating economic growth, settling regional disputes, lessening trade restrictions, the inclusion of the USSR in international economic institutions, and environ-mental preservation. But with the rapid breakup of the USSR, the power equation quickly changed and soon US policy-makers envisioned this new world order as exclusively dominated by the US. The European nations created the European Union in order to establish a competitive footing in this new world order. However, the meteoric rise of China and India, particularly China, has reconfigured this European conceived new world order. In 2003, in terms of absolute level of Gross National Income (GNI) at Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) exchange rates, China, with $6.4 trillion in GNI, was the world’s second largest, second only to the US at $11 trillion. India with $3 trillion in GNI was fourth behind the US, China and Japan (3.6 trillion).iii China and India has accounted for roughly 40% of global GDP growth in recent years.iii China has passed Japan as the world’s second largest economy and economists have projected that in 10 years it will replace the US as the world’s leading economy. This threat to white supremacy and hegemony will lead to a new new world order and is something the West will try to prevent at all cost. China has used various techniques to establish its growing influence in the world. Chinese leaders have manipulated their currency to keep the prices of their exports artificially low; offered loans to developing nations with no-strings attached thereby undermining the World Bank and International Monetary Fund; they have forgiven billion dollar bilateral debt thus ingratiating themselves to debtors; they have denounced protectionism, yet they protect their markets. For example, China recently imposed strict export quotas on rare earths, indispensable resources in high technology. Rare metals such as lanthanum, neodymium and promethium are almost exclusively mined in China and clearly China has no intention of exporting these metals (without demanding considerably elevated export tariffs). China has dismissed protests from the US with the claim that World Trade Organization (WTO) rules allow a nation to protect its own natural resources. In 2010, China increased its military budget by 7.5 percent. Though the US military budget is eight times larger, the West is concerned by China’s increase. Some experts feel that China poses a threat to Japan and other Asia nations, still others believe China’s moves are preparatory steps for world conquest. However, a more astute look at the situation would demonstrate that that is not China’s style. China has not militarily attacked a nation in over thirty years—China prefers the yin as opposed to the yang approach. If China is going to take over the world, it will be through trade rather than bombs. China is pursuing an aggressive trade policy with the West, granting low-interest loans to Afrikan and Latin American nations, using diplomatic pressure when necessary, and still providing the largest number of soldiers for United Nations peacekeeping missions. Yes, China is exercising its newfound power effectively and it is a power that does not resemble the hard or “yang” power of the West. As its economy booms, China has sought and acquired many of the resources it needs to sustain its growth. Pursuant to that, China increasingly has turned to Afrika for much of her needs. While Chinese interests in Afrika have surged, collectively the West continues to make the vast majority of investments in Afrika and remains highly influential. Still, China’s activities have created tension between herself and Afrika’s former colonial masters. But the most important competitors in this new cold war or new new world order however will be China and the present leader of West, the US.

We've watch Obama's second inauguration and many of us are as proud this time as we were the first. But many of us were less enthusiastic because of Obama's performance thus far. We have made a number of excuses for his policies, and wondered why he hasn't done more for black people. And there lies our biggest mistake: We think that Obama is a black leader; when in fact--he is a leader who is black. There are pictures, and T-shirts that have Obama, King, and Malcolm on them. I own one. It's a nice shirt; but I know that Obama does not belong on it. Why? Because he is not part of their leadership tradition. King and Malcolm were leaders that grew from a black constituency; a constituency that was engaged in struggle, and they reflected that struggle--they were its voice! For years King and the “civil righters” fought against Jim Crow, fought for the inclusion of black people into America's democracy. King even challenged the U.S.'s position on the war in Vietnam. Initially Malcolm rejected the entire worldview of the white man, fighting for separation. He later joined the civil rights movement, and became the bridge to the Black Power movement. He work tirelessly for the cause of black redemption, whether in the Nation of Islam or out of it. Obama, however, has no such past. He is a newcomer, with a very short history of organizing. He never struggled against the power structure. He has mostly been a part of the structure! And as president it is clear who he represents. He took an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution. Not an oath to defend the human dignity of all people. Now as a defender of the constitution, he has by default becomes a defender of U.S. foreign policy. A quick review of U.S. foreign policy will reveal that it has always been “expansionist” and exploitative, and more recently designed to maintain U.S. global hegemony.

At this inauguration Obama performed a symbolic gesture using two Bibles during his swearing in ritual. He took his oath with his hand resting upon the Bibles of Lincoln and King. Cornel West was disturbed by this gesture, and rightly so. Here's my two cents. First, Lincoln and King are not in the same league. Lincoln was a defender of the American status quo, who said, if he could have preserved the Union without freeing a single slave, he would have. He thought blacks were inferior to whites, and that the two races we heading for a possible race war; thus, he offered Afrikan American colonization as a remedy. Second, King was a man of the cloth and a genuine proponent of peace. While Obama speaks of peace, and he like King, won the Noble Peace Prize, the comparisons end there. Obama's policies have increased the number of military engagements. He has expanded the U.S. presence in Afrika, increased the use of drones, collateral damage is up, Guantanamo Bay (also called Gitmo) is still open, and the U.S. military is still in Iraq and Afghanistan. American munition sales are way up, which means corporations are making a killing from this "War on Terror." Obama is not to blame for all this (for even if he want to be anti-war, would the military-industrial complex let him be?), but my point is that based solely on Obama's record thus far, I doubt if King were living, that he would let Obama use his Bible.

Yes Obama is a black man: he has that swag, that gait, and that vocal cadence and timbre. His wife is a sister, and a great look: she is intelligent, dignified and fly. Together they give a hellava boost to the image of “black love.” And I love that! It is something that our communities desperately need. But let's not get it twisted: Obama is not King or Malcolm, nor is he part of their tradition of struggle and black leadership.

Black Power lives. There have been two examples lately where the black collective voice has made a difference: The Django Unchained collection set and the reality show All My Baba's Mamas. Both were pulled or discontinued due to a growing public outrage.The six action figure set consisted of 8" posable dolls, which featured clothes, weapons and accessories. The dolls included: Slaves Django, his wife Broomhilda, slave master Calvin Candie, Stephen, the fiendish ex-slave, Dr. Schultz, the bounty hunter, and Candie's bodyguard Butch. However, after the Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, Najee Ali, director of Project Islamic Hope, and a coalition of African-American community leaders announced a planned boycott of the doll set, the Weinstein Company which owns the rights to the collectibles, ordered toy manufacturer the National Entertainment Collectibles Association (NECA) to discontinue the Django Unchained action figure dolls.

Rapper Shawty Lo

Also, the new reality-TV special that was being developed for the Oxygen Network which told the story of Atlanta rapper Shawty Lo and his 11 children by 10 different women, entitled “All My Babies’ Mamas,” after protests from various Afrikan American groups has been cancelled. Change.org circulated a petition with more than 30,000 signatures that called the program “an attack not just on African-American parents and children but all parents and children.” The petition was supported by the Parents Television Council (PTC), a non-partisan education organization advocating responsible entertainment. PTC called the show “grotesquely irresponsible and exploitative" and also threatened to contact every corporate sponsor that buys advertising time on the Oxygen network to hold them accountable for such programing.

There is still power in the protest and collective action. Ungawa!

P.S. Ungawa is a word whose usage may have originated in Tarzan movies. It has come to mean Black Power by Afrikan Americans.

We have grown accustom to hearing and seeing only negative stories and images from the Afrikan continent. This is mostly by design, as the Western media has overlooked or just refused to project us in a more positive light. The following are some favorable stories or trends you may or may not have heard about. Rise in Afrikan women leaders2012 witnessed three African women take on key leadership positions. Joyce Banda, was appointed president in Malawi, Liberians re-elected Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, and the African Union inaugurated its first woman as chief, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma. Banda has made notable economic reforms, which include selling the presidential jet, reducing the number of government cars and cutting her salary. Likewise, Dlamini-Zuma, has taken office facing monetary woes and has challenged the organization'sreliance on foreign aid.Dlamini-Zuma's election is hoped to ease tensions between the AU and the International Criminal Court (ICC), which presently has as its top prosecutor, an African woman, Gambia's Fatou Bensouda. Afrikan leaders have accused the court of focusing on the abuses of African nations, while failing to investigate abuses in other nations. The AU has welcomed Bensouda as a major step in healing relations between itself and the ICC.

Growing economies, a growing middle class

According to the Human Development Index (HDI), which is a way of measuring development by combining indicators of life expectancy, educational attainment and income, Afrika has some of the fastest-growing economies in the world. And as a result, there is a burgeoning middle class in a number of nations. The number of middle-class Afrikans tripled over the past three decades to about 34% of the continent's population, or 313 million people out of a continent of nearly a billion. This is arguably the largest growth since independence (and largerly due to Afrika's partnering with China). However, the method for determining who comprises or what constitutes the middle-class in Afrika, is based on people spending between $2 and $20 a day, a threshold that a number of analysts say is too low, and consequently paints a misleading "prosperity." What we can say, is that although there is economic growth and a growing middle-class, it is a "floating class," one that is always at risk of sliding back in to poverty.

The report, also warns of the growing income inequality. Nevertheless it notes that the middle class is crucial in anchoring African economies. Still analysts have warned that the current growth in a middle class has yet to generate any real employment.

by TRUTH Minista Paul Scott "Mental pictures, stereotypes and fake history reinforces mystery?" Why is that ? Boogie Down Productions

From birth, we are taught to believe myths. We start off believing fables about tooth fairies and an old fat dude in a red suit ridin' around the hood in a red sleigh pulled by a red nosed reindeer. As we grow older and enter the mis-educational system, we are indoctrinated by stories about a lost sailor named Chris "discovering" America and an "honest" opportunist named Abe "freeing the slaves." We are also programmed to believe the urban legend that the Hip Hop of today comes out of the hood. It may come as a shock for some but the Hip Hop that is played on the radio today owes more to the campus of Harvard than it does the streets of Harlem.

Most Hip Hop fans can recite, verbatim, the often parroted propaganda about how Hip Hop started in the parks of the Bronx in the late 70's and went on to become the global enterprise that it is today. Like most myths, there is a shred of truth in this hype, however, the whole truth is hidden from the masses. One flip through the pages of books like "The Big Payback: The History of the Business of Hip Hop" by Dan Charnas and one sees how quickly the focus on Grandmaster Flash spinin' in the Bronx switches to stories about Maury, the mild mannered accountant thinking of a master plan to have his multinational company exploit the talents of "ghetto" youth. Contrary to the popular belief that commercial Hip Hop is the brainchild of mix masters in the 'hood,” in reality, much of the credit goes to the masterminds at Ivy League schools. While it is, indeed, true that Hip Hop originated in the Big Apple, the moment that "Rapper's Delight" was played outside of the five boroughs, the corporate takeover of Hip Hop began. Later, as interest in Hip Hop spread throughout the world, the people who were largely responsible for defining what Hip Hop is or is not were not the neighborhood scribes but Ivy League brainiacs who interpreted the street lingo of the Chocolate cities for the Vanilla suburbs. Although, rap is promoted as being the voice of the streets, it is interesting that the founders of Hip Hop's premier magazine, The Source, Dave Mayes and Jon Schector, as well as early members of "The Mind Squad" formed the magazine while they were students at Harvard during the late '80's. Also, in 1993, Keith Clinkscales, who received an MBA from Harvard Business School, was named CEO of Vibe Magazine. It was under his watch that the magazine heavily promoted the East Coast/West Coast Beef that resulted in the deaths of Tupac Shakur, Notorious BIG and many others. Which adds to the theory that all the "Hip Hop" beefs are just a part of a diabolical marketing scheme to sell CD's. Also, although rappers such as Waka Flocka Flame have said in interviews that they purposely dumb down their lyrics to "keep it real" for their homies in the 'hood, according to a 2006 article in New York Magazine, one of the hottest producers at Bad Boy Records was Ryan Leslie who scored 1600 on his SAT, entered Harvard at 15 and graduated at 19 years old. It must be noted that Harvard's connection to black music did not start with Hip Hop but goes back to the early 70's with "A Study of the Soul Music Environment" aka the Harvard Report.

Misogyny in hip hop is a frequent topic of discussion. I guess this topic is so popular because it goes against the historical theme in Afrikan American music. It is generally absent from Gospel, Blues, Jazz, and R&B. One might find hints of it in blues. So when we hear lyrics that violate our cultural and musical ethos, we are shocked, offended, and even embarrassed. I'm speaking as an older person. People are rightly afraid that this misogyny in music will translate into increased violence against women, further damaging the present fragile relationship between males and females. My biggest problem with this whole issue, is we are adopting the attitudes and behaviors of alien, non-Afrikan cultures. This includes both the Afrikan diaspora and the continent. Through the ideology and philosophy of religions, women have been stripped of their divinity, the font of their dignity. In Merlin Stone's When God was a Woman, she documents that the scourge of misogyny followed in the wake of patriarchal Indo-Aryan conquerors. Thus, misogyny developed in the ancient East, in area ravaged and later settled by descendants of these Indo-Aryans. Judaism she points out, was one of the religions that embraced this misogyny to a greater extend than others, and its stress on God being only male, and the removal of female deities/angels, would have dire consequences on their society, and on the people influenced by their ideas and teachings. Thus, we see the same misogyny in Christianity and Islam, which were both derived and inspired by Judaism. However, the Indo-Aryans inspired and influenced other religions and areas of the world as well. Aryans left their mark on early India, as the conquering Indo-Aryans attacked the settle communities established by Afrikan migrants from what is present-day Somalia. And rather than bring civilization as history books often inform us, the Aryans brought death and destruction, One of the most immediate casualties of Aryan conquest was the role and power of women. Before the arrival of the Aryans, the people of Mohenjo-Daro treated their women as goddesses. However, with the arrival of the women-hating Aryans life for women would change in unimaginable ways. All of the following demonstrate Aryan misogyny:1-Female infanticide developed as a solution to a family producing too many females, of which a father had to pay huge wedding dowries to the bridegroom’s family. This was a financial burden that families found unbearable, consequently, the practice developed. Holy Aryan texts say:

“Tasmat striyam jatam parasyanti ut pumamsam haranti“

Translation: You should reject a female child when born, and take up a male.”

2-Child marriages were common in Aryan India. Hindu texts prescribe that the best partner for a man is one-third his age. This would mean that ” A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl of eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would otherwise be impeded, he must marry sooner.” [Manu Smriti]

3-Wife-Burning was a common custom. If a husband accused his wife of infidelity, the council of village elders would then order an ordeal by fire. The accused wife would be required to pass through a blazing flame. If she died that was proof of her guilt; but even signs of burns would be taken as proof, hence we would be put to death. The cultural prototype for this custom was Sita, Ram’s wife. She was required by Rama, to pass through the fire ordeal after her return from Sri Lanka.

4-Sati was introduced into the area by the Aryans around 1500 B.C. It was custom of the burning of a woman after the death of her husband. (En masse sati was jauhar.) It was sanctioned by Hindu sacred texts, and its practice continue till today in many villages in India.

Ten Worst Cities in America for Black Men Not Working; No local or national plan to change thispercentage of employed, working-age (16-64) black males in these cities:Detroit 43.0Buffalo 43.9 Milwaukee 44.7 Cleveland 47.7 Chicago 48.3 St. Louis 51.3 Philadelphia 51.7 Cincinnati 52.6 Richmond 52.7 Memphis 53.2 San Francisco 53.3 Information from Race and Male Employment in the Wake of the Great Recession by Marc Levine of the Center for Economic Development at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

How did the fiscal cliff scenario come about in the first place? Well, it all started last year, after Congress create the debt-ceiling crisis. Now they've created the fiscal cliff. Almost every year Congress addresses the nation's debt, which usually results in increasing the country's debt-ceiling or borrowing power. The government has always been in debt—money was borrowed to finance the American Revolution. This means the country has always been paying off its debt, otherwise how could it continue to borrow? (Lenders are always making money.) Depending on the historic period, some times the debt has been high, other times low-but there has always been debt. There also has been partisan disagreement over the debt-ceiling before. However, Congress has usually (quietly) resolved the issue. Under Barack Obama's presidency, for some reason (wink! wink!), Congress, particularly the Republicans, has decided to turn what has normally been a private issue, into a public crisis. This time around the Republicans decide to hold the government hostage by agreeing to raising the debt-ceiling only if the government agreed to future spending cuts. Additionally, they wanted tax cuts for the rich! This compromise resulted in the Budget Control Act of 2011, which offered a number of short-term fixes. The Act raised the debt ceiling to 2.4 trillion dollars and reduced proposed increases to future spending. It created a bipartisan Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the "Supercommittee") that would work on more permanent solutions. To encourage bipartisanship, the Act called for a number of automatic economic triggers that would have severe consequences for the U.S. economy, if the Supercommittee failed to iron-out a workable economic plan or if Congress failed to enact it into law. These triggers were scheduled to go into effect on December, 31, 2012. Some of the changes were 1) the end of last year’s temporary payroll tax cuts (resulting in a 2% tax increase for workers), 2) the end of certain tax breaks for businesses 3) shifts in the alternative minimum tax 4) a rollback of the "Bush tax cuts" from 2001-2003, and 5) the beginning of taxes for Obamacare. Additionally, the spending cuts agreed upon as part of the debt ceiling deal of 2011 were to go into effect. Clearly, no one intended the triggers to actually be set off, but instead thought that the threat of them, would spur compromise. The objective of the Supercommittee was to develop a deficit reduction plan that would avoid a U.S. sovereign default. In order to limit partisan gridlock, the Supercommittee's recommendations were to be subject to a simple vote by the full legislative bodies without amendment. Unfortunately, the Supercommittee was unable to come up with a plan. Consequently, we find ourselves at the fiscal cliff—when the temporary terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 end. Well, the government went over the cliff, but luckily it was only for 21 hours.

Republicans should be upset w/ Reagan

Was the deal a good one? The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the new plan includes over $330 billion in new spending (over the next ten years), and it will increase the deficit by $3.9 trillion, and raise taxes on 77.1% of U.S. households. In 2013, the payroll tax, which was reduced to 4.2% in 2011 and 2012, returns to 6.2%. The agreement raises tax rates to 39.6% from 35% on individual with income of more than $400,000 and on couples with incomes of more than $450,000. (This falls short of Obama's pledge of raising taxes on those that made over $250,000.) The deal does gives U.S. taxpayers greater certainty regarding the alternative minimum tax, and it keeps a number of popular tax breaks in place. This fiscal cliff agreement addressed only the revenue side (taxes) and postponed any discussion of spending cuts for two months. Hence, the deal has not addressed the country's $16.4 trillion debt load, the Republican's primary issue. So where does this leave the nation? Right back where it started, in fact, the debt-ceiling crisis is back—it's time to negotiate whether it will be raised or not again.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the Republicans have conspired to make Obama's presidency a failure. The debt-ceiling must be raised! It always has been. It was under Reagan that the debt grew the most, yet he is the Republican icon. So, why all the political jockeying? Are President Obama's ideas so far to the left of Clinton's that the Republicans have decided they must make a stand now! The Republicans have found a way to hold the executive office hostage, and they have decided to do it at this unique time in history--when the nation has elected its first black president. Is it race or politics that's handcuffing America? Probably a little or a lot of both. Or maybe the Republicans are extremely far-sighted: They know that if the first black president is (perceived as) a failure, then the likelihood of there ever being another one becomes an extremely remote possibility!